Worker understood significance of release, had time to seek advice: Tribunal
A worker’s discrimination complaint has been dismissed by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal because the worker signed a valid and binding agreement releasing her former employer from any human rights and legal claims.
The worker was employed as a finisher/inspector for CCL Industries, a Toronto-based packaging and labelling company, since 2004. Originally from Poland, the worker was not fluent in English but could usually understand it.
On Aug. 8, 2017, CCL advised the worker that her employment would be terminated. The company provided her with a termination letter that explained the severance agreement being offered, along with a release, which purported to cover any future claims arising from the Ontario Human Rights Code. The worker would receive additional payment from CCL for signing the release.
The worker had the opportunity to ask any questions about the agreement to the human resources department as well as time to seek legal advice. She said that she understood what “release” meant in the termination letter, but she was shocked and upset upon learning of her termination of employment. These feelings were compounded by the fact that she had been experiencing health issues prior to her dismissal.
The worker didn’t ask for any assistance in translating the termination letter. However, she contacted the Ontario Ministry of Labour for advice, and the ministry suggested that she contact the province’s Human Rights Tribunal. With help from her daughter – who was fluent in English – the worker obtained an application form from the tribunal.
The release of an employee’s claim to LTD benefits wasn’t enforceable since it didn’t mention that the employee was still receiving the benefits, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled.
Worker signed release after one week
The worker didn’t request any extension of time and decided to sign the severance agreement and the release on Aug. 16.
The worker believed that her health issues contributed to her dismissal and that CCL didn’t accommodate her. As a result, she filed a complaint with the tribunal alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability. She also claimed that she was unaware of her rights under the code when she signed the release.
A case assessment was performed on the worker’s complaint and recommended that the tribunal conduct a preliminary hearing to determine whether proceeding with it would amount to an abuse of the tribunal’s process because the worker signed a settlement that included a release of CCL of any human rights claims.
The tribunal noted that the Ontario Human Rights Code does not explicitly bar applications where a release has been executed, but it’s open to the tribunal to determine such an application to be an abuse of process.
The tribunal referred to Ontario jurisprudence that established that if a literal and ordinary meaning of a release demonstrates “a clear intention on the part of the parties to fully and finally release the respondent from all claims, it should not be easily disturbed.” In order to question a release, the test involves addressing whether the party fully understood the release’s significant, whether they received fair consideration for signing it, any evidence of economic pressure, and any evidence of psychological or emotional pressure that amounts to duress.
An employer must provide statutory minimum terminate pay but can withhold additional payment conditional to signing a release, according to an employment lawyer.
Worker understood release, sought advice
Noting that the worker consulted the Ministry of Labour and contacted the tribunal through her daughter, the tribunal found that the worker understood the significance of the release. In addition, it was clear that she received monetary compensation for signing it and never indicated that it wasn’t enough, said the tribunal, noting that she had the release for a week before deciding to sign it.
The tribunal also found that financial pressure is normal whenever employment is lost, but there was no indication that the worker faced any additional economic pressure beyond the ordinary in this case. The same applied to psychological or emotional pressure – losing her job caused a certain amount of pressure, but there wasn’t any evidence that it amounted to a coercion of her will, the tribunal said.
Releases are usually the final word, so both employers and employees should make sure they’re prepared to live with it, says a lawyer.
As for the worker’s claim that she didn’t know her rights under the code, the fact that she obtained advice from the Ministry of Labour and obtained an application form from the tribunal before signing the release weakened that argument, said the tribunal.
The tribunal determined that the worker was given ample opportunity to familiarize herself with the terms of the severance agreement and the release, which was a full and final settlement of any claims arising out of the worker’s employment with CCL, was binding when the worker signed it.
The worker’s application was dismissed. See Borowa v. CCL Industries Inc., 2022 HRTO 1407.
